Order of Operations

[Hipmonlee]

If we were just planning to minimise rules, then there would be no reason for testing whatsoever. We are definitely looking for the most competitive ruleset, or at least the best anyway.

Which is why we should test unbanning evasion, because I am convinced doing so will result in a more competitive metagame.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tangerine]

If we were just planning to minimise rules, then there would be no reason for testing whatsoever. We are definitely looking for the most competitive ruleset, or at least the best anyway.

There would be reason for testing - we would be testing to see if something is really "broken" or not.

I think we are either looking for the least number of rules to make Pokemon competitive, OR we are looking for whatever rules we need to make Pokemon most competitive.

Which means that skill needs to be rewarded over luck and elements of luck needs to be removed - which is exactly the reason why we shouldn't bother testing evasion - since it adds another potential luck factor.

 

[Jumpman16]

Skill will be rewarded over luck and elements of luck if said luck cannot make its way into a consistently winning strategy. If this appears to be the case if/when we test DT (imagine if Zapdos and Umbreon didn't get BP), then we wouldn't have to ban evasion because the natural skill in the game would trump luck, as always.

I've never really agreed with the letter behind the "least number of rules as possible" law, as it implies that we should hesitate to ban things that have remained in competitive pokemon largely or entirely by precedent, like Garchomp.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Which means that skill needs to be rewarded over luck and elements of luck needs to be removed - which is exactly the reason why we shouldn't bother testing evasion - since it adds another potential luck factor.

This is an extreme oversimplification of the game. When you use an evasion move, you are using it at the expense of another move. And that other move will almost always have a luck element to it, because that is the nature of pokemon. So you arent creating luck out of thin air, you are just swapping some form of luck for another form.

The fear with evasion is that poor players will win more often against better players, but this again is a ridiculous oversimplification. How much better are these players? I mean, if you have two players who are very close with the current rules, but the better of the two is more capable of handling the extra option that evasion moves offers to some of his pokemon, then it seems extremely unlikely that the poorer players chance of winning will increase with the addition of evasion moves to the game.

The worry that an extremely poor player might have a chance of sweeping because of ridiculous assistance from evasion is exaggerated imo, and I think testing will prove that. I mean, DT and Minimise cant CH, and I know which form of luck I'd rather deal with..

Have a nice day.

 

[Tangerine]

Skill will be rewarded over luck and elements of luck if said luck cannot make its way into a consistently winning strategy.

The fear with evasion is that poor players will win more often against better players, but this again is a ridiculous oversimplification. How much better are these players? I mean, if you have two players who are very close with the current rules, but the better of the two is more capable of handling the extra option that evasion moves offers to some of his pokemon, then it seems extremely unlikely that the poorer players chance of winning will increase with the addition of evasion moves to the game.

The reason I don't believe it is an oversimplification is that the current system (one match to decide victor) promotes the mentality that one battle matters. Skill will be rewarded over luck most of the time, but adding evasion and OHKO moves will simply increase the number of ways luck without skill triumphs over skill, which isn't very healthy in terms of the game.

Yes, it is not the best move to "rely on luck" - but the thing is that even if the "good" player can utilize one extra move for an advantage, and this will be true in the long run, but in the short run, it will lead to more terrible sportsmanship that we have observed.

Pokemon is considered not a very good competitive game because the better player does not always win, and I don't think we should promote such mentality if we are indeed going for the "most competitive" ruleset.

It's like how much we dislike people who post those warstories of "look at my NU beat these bunch of OUs" - the player likely scourged through quite a number of battles before finding that one match where he had a complete advantage and uses the warstory to promote that his mentality is the "cool thing to do".

I've never really agreed with the letter behind the "least number of rules as possible" law, as it implies that we should hesitate to ban things that have remained in competitive pokemon largely or entirely by precedent, like Garchomp.

Not quite. The point is to ban, or label things as suspects only when necessary. This means that we shouldn't label things such as SR as a suspect "just because we might prefer a metagame without SR more", but only label things as Garchomp as a suspect, considering the sheer volume of arguments Garchomp and Deoxys E had endured.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Yeah, I am not talking about things evening out in the long run though. What I am trying to say is that the likelihood that a poor player will win due to excessive evasion luck is counteracted by the fact that a better player has a wider range of options they can use for outplaying the poorer opponent.

But the impact of these two changes isnt going to be a straight line. Maybe very good players will find it comparitively easier against moderately good players but slightly more difficult against very bad players. But is that a case of adding luck to the game?

This is the sort of thing testing is supposed to tell us.. So we should test it and then see what people think.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tangerine]

Yeah, I am not talking about things evening out in the long run though. What I am trying to say is that the likelihood that a poor player will win due to excessive evasion luck is counteracted by the fact that a better player has a wider range of options they can use for outplaying the poorer opponent.

Isn't this literally the biggest complaint? You completely outplay someone, but you still get shut down by luck. Sure, the better player has the opportunity to outplay the opponent - but still has a new element of luck to deal with that they didn't have to before.

Obviously we see things differently - I don't believe that better players will have an "easier" time with newbies who use OHKO moves or Evasion because these moves literally is telling the other player "I rely on luck and I'm going to hax you to death". Yes, the better player has the chance to outplay the opponent who is literally "wasting" their turns away in the meanwhile, but I think in the end this move increase the role of luck in the metagame which is something we should be against.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Peoples biggest complaint is the probability of losing to poor players will be increased. I dont think that that will happen in any significant manner.

I am not talking about OHKOs because I have no reason to think that there is any reasonable method of dealing with them that exists in the game of pokemon. And I dont really want to get into the details of usage of evasion in this thread, we could post in a thread specific for discussing evasion in that.

But ultimately I believe that what you think will happen if we unban these moves is not really accurate. So to clarify the issue we should have a test. If you want to discuss why you think evasion will result in more luck then I recommend posting in this thread.

Have a nice day.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

Good day.

I am all for the sorting out of the UU tiers as soon as possible as it will allow for the OU and UU tiers to remain "fresh". Even though there are less players compared to those with an interest in OU they shouldn't be pushed to the bottom of the barrel. There are more than enough people on Smogon who would probably be happy to assist in such an endeavor.

I also think we should test Stealth Rock (if we are going to) before Ho-Oh as SR seems to be the major reason why people would even deem it a Suspect and we could potentially strike off two suspects at once and get to something else a little quicker.

 

[Tangerine]

Peoples biggest complaint is the probability of losing to poor players will be increased. I dont think that that will happen in any significant manner.

I am not talking about OHKOs because I have no reason to think that there is any reasonable method of dealing with them that exists in the game of pokemon. And I dont really want to get into the details of usage of evasion in this thread, we could post in a thread specific for discussing evasion in that.

But ultimately I believe that what you think will happen if we unban these moves is not really accurate. So to clarify the issue we should have a test. If you want to discuss why you think evasion will result in more luck then I recommend posting in this thread.

Have a nice day.

The point is this. It does not matter whether or not better players win more or not with or without evasion. The point is that Evasion is a new luck factor that we have to deal with and by testing it/allowing it we are promoting the role of luck in a supposedly "competitive" metagame.

It's like turning on items in SSB. Sure, the better player will most likely grab the item and use it better - or utilize the time that the poorer player spends grabbing the item to whack them around, meaning that it is not going have a significant change in who wins or not. But Items are an unneeded factor of luck, particularly why most competitive arenas turn off items, or use certain stages with no externalities so it is a test of "skill".

 

[Hipmonlee]

If evasion results in better players winning more often, then it is having the effect of reducing luck.

I mean you said:

Pokemon is considered not a very good competitive game because the better player does not always win, and I don't think we should promote such mentality if we are indeed going for the "most competitive" ruleset.

If something increases the chance the better player will win then it is making the game a better competitive game (by this argument).

Have a nice day.

 

[Tangerine]

If evasion results in better players winning more often, then it is having the effect of reducing luck.

I mean you said:
If something increases the chance the better player will win then it is making the game a better competitive game (by this argument).

Have a nice day.

"Fair enough", but what I meant by that is that we shouldn't promote more factors of luck within the game.

But I will concede the point considering I guess the results are worth looking at.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Question: How can you know who the better players are and whether or not they are winning more because of Double Team?

If we have a way of knowing this, I'm all for it, but I don't know how we would know.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Well we can find them out by having a rating requirement for people before they are allowed to vote.

Also, I am just arguing specifically against Tang's point, I dont think reduction of luck is deserving of any consideration whatsoever.. But yeah, once we identified them, we just have to ask them.

Have a nice day.

 

[Jumpman16]

I think the idea is that if Double Team and OHKOs do not and cannot assure a battler more wins than he or she would have gotten with a team that doesn't use them, then we won't actually have to do anything, because those who actually want to win consistently (the point of competitive pokemon, after all) will not use either by natural cause.

Isn't this literally the biggest complaint? You completely outplay someone, but you still get shut down by luck. Sure, the better player has the opportunity to outplay the opponent - but still has a new element of luck to deal with that they didn't have to before.

I honestly could not possibly care less about these kind of battlers. The people you're describing, if actually serious and not just drama-whoring, fail to grasp that the luck of one battle is extremely insignificant to the big picture of a skilled battler, one that is painted over dozens and dozens and dozens of battles at the least.

 

[Jumpman16]

okay: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40703

bunch of mew stuff. i haven't read that thread much but we havent really talked about it and certainly not much in this thread...it's been on the list forever but i'm not really opposed to taking it off. i can theorymon a bunch of shit that it can do in ou that makes it "obviously uber"...i mean ideally we test everything but we are seriously going to be benefitted by being a little realistic as well and removing suspects that...aren't suspect, like Darkrai. this list, again, is:

1. Garchomp (75)
2. Lati@s (116)
3. Evasion Clause (126)
4. Manaphy (127)
5. Species Clause (136)
6. OHKO Clause (150)
7. UU Tiers (158)
8. Mew (159)
9. Arceus (172)

we took darkrai off and added dxe and skymin on there, and may add stealth rock or may not. the order here is what's most important: the consensus we *did* have is that mew is not to be decided on until everything above it is. so if we were to remove it now it's not like it would matter if that were a "mistake" until next summer or whatever. but can you guys objectively think of any reasons to keep it on the list? i guess i'm inviting theorymon here cause we have nothing else to go on as far as how mew fares in standard but yeah. please weigh in on this one guys

 

[Syberia]

Well it's probably just personal preference, but I think we should test the last actual pokemon (Manaphy) before we go testing rules.

I don't think Mew ever belonged on the list, there's just too many things it can do, and do well in fact. Besides that, I ran a dual-screen Alakazam lead with a Yache Berry BP Gliscor behind it and leadoff Aerodactyl was basically the only thing that stopped it consistently, so I'd hate to see something that can pass a boost in any stat, without even a x4 weakness to exploit.

 

[Bologo]

Sorry, this might be a little offtopic, but I thought we all agreed that Deoxys-D and Ho-oh were going to be suspects? Correct me if I'm wrong though.

About Mew, the thing we really have to consider is what it actually gained from Platinum. From looking at its movepool, the only notable addition I can see is Trick. Let's see some of the pros/cons of Trick on Mew movesets:

Pros

+ Allows it to cripple a key counter to a BP chain
+ Cripple walls so it can set up a boost to pass or sweep with
+ Allows use of Choice items to deliver fast statuses with Scarf, and huge hits with Band or Specs
+ Can use all Choice items VERY well
+ Due to unpredictablity, it may be hard to expect a Trick

Cons

- If used on a BP set, there will be no room for an attack, meaning that Mew will be useless if Taunted
- Takes up another moveslot on something that already have major 4 moveslot syndrome
- With the sheer amount of Trick users in OU, Mew may find it difficult to get off a successful Trick (I know this contradicts with the other point in the Pros, but if Trick becomes standard, there is no doubt that Trick users will be switching into Mew)

There is probably a lot more that I have missed about Trick, so if you find anymore pros or cons, please tell me and I will update this list. If we're going to be deciding whether Mew should stay on the list though, we need to decide if the addition of Trick would make it broken or not in OU. Other than that, not much has changed with Mew to consider anything else IMO.

 

[Tangerine]

Stealth Rock should never be tested - it is not broken and I think we should be very very wary of testing bans.

I was under the impression Ho-oh was a "suspect" since Aeolus locked that rather long Ho-oh thread saying that it was a valid suspect, "so why not"?

I don't think Mew should be on that list. My stance on Mew is pretty much the same (although I don't think the wall breaking set is as dangerous I hyped up it to be on that thread). Also I think trick is the last of Mew's worries really and I don't think you really need to worry about Mew using Trick on a BP Set (I mean... think about it), especially when it already has TAUNT to protect the BP Chain. Also your last "con" is literally "it has counters therefore it is not useful" which is a bit silly. I think you should "review" your pro/con list because I don't think it tells anything interesting. Also I don't think base 100 SpA is "good enough" for Specs without a good STAB Attack (this is important) to be considered a "good" choice user in this metagame - Psychic is a terrible attacking type this metagame really. Maybe I shall rewrite the choice items guide sometime.

Anyway, about Mew. The offensive stats aren't the issue - its more of the fact that it is unpredictable. This is a valid argument because this makes the Baton Passing set that much more effective, because the opponent has to take that much more of a risk before switching in. Even the Baton Passing set is "unpredictable" with its ability to pass any +2 boost it wishes (although I doubt anyone will be passing iron defense/amnesia anytime soon) - and especially I think its unique ability to pass +2 SpA OR +2 Attack is what makes it so risky for the opponent. add to this the fact that it is pretty much the best Wall Breaker in the Game - as apparent by just the Nasty Plot set. You're not going to be able to revenge kill it easily either considering its defenses, and it also has Explosion to take down one last thing before it goes. Add Taunt to the mix.

The issue isn't the fact that "Mew can be used well in any team", but "Mew can be used in any way on any team" and I think that's dangerous and what separates it from SR that "every team uses so well", because SR can only have "one effect". Platinum is unpredictable and to some nearly "unplayable" because of this and I think Mew is definitely something that will push it over the edge.

So I think the order should be

Latias - Latios - Manaphy - Ho-oh (if it is a valid suspect) - OHKO - Evasion Clause - Species Clause (This will be... interesting. Instinct tells me no but I think it will "work out" in the end unless everyone starts using Jump's Lucario allstar team) - UU Tiers

Also I was under the impression the Arceus issue was already decided - that "its not a Pokemon until Nintendo releases it")
See: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47536

 

[Tangerine]

Double posting since I just got a good idea

Also, I think Trick is a rather negative force in the metagame. I think we can limit the effectiveness of Trick by testing Item Clause.

Not only does it stop people from abusing Trick so much, but it also weakens stall teams by not letting them abuse Leftovers. It also weakens offensive teams by not letting them use more than one scarfer, life orb, which are all effective items. This might help balanced teams out more which everyone claims "doesnt work in this metagame"

I think we should test Item Clause. Any opinions?

So if people agree with me (which they should!) I think it should be tested ASAP, but after Latios. Latias - Latios - Item Clause - Manaphy - Ho-oh (if it is a valid suspect) - Evasion Clause - Species Clause (still iffy about it) - UU Tiers

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

As cool an idea as it sounds, it's a ban not based in resolving a competitive metagame, and arbitrary restrictions like Item Clause don't really seem all that competitive. It seems like it would hurt more than it would help, given how few real viable items there are. Also, there's no real way that testing it helps. There will be no metagame that is less broken before or after Item Clause. It's like testing SR. If neither metagame is broken, why ban anything?

Good in theory, bad in practice, and not really all that beneficial to the metagame in general. It would be interesting, but nothing more.

 

[kd24]

you are looking solely at the positives and not the negatives. Now we will have pokemon with decent items when they could have much better ones. trick is still out there with three choice items to use with it and it will be absolutely heartbreaking if you lose your one life orb or leftovers on your team.

 

[Tangerine]

As cool an idea as it sounds, it's a ban not based in resolving a competitive metagame, and arbitrary restrictions like Item Clause don't really seem all that competitive. It seems like it would hurt more than it would help, given how few real viable items there are. Also, there's no real way that testing it helps. There will be no metagame that is less broken before or after Item Clause. It's like testing SR. If neither metagame is broken, why ban anything?

Not really. people have complained the lack of balanced teams this generation and how people have to go either "all offense" or "all stall". I think item clause can help this by promoting the use of balanced teams.

Also, I'm of the impression that Trick is borderline broken now that every other Pokemon has it - and I think one way we can balance this is through Item Clause because "Choice Scarf is the best item in the game"

you are looking solely at the positives and not the negatives. Now we will have pokemon with decent items when they could have much better ones. trick is still out there with three choice items to use with it and it will be absolutely heartbreaking if you lose your one life orb or leftovers on your team.

yes, but choice scarf is still the best item to trick in the game particularly because the boosting speed locks the opponent into their moves a lot quicker. And the point is exactly that - because we essentially weaken certain strategies with Item Clause, it will promote the use of Balanced teams, which everyone says "doesn't work" this generation.

 

[Legacy Raider]

Item Clause is a very arbitrary constraint simply because there are so few items that have any competitive viability. We have the Choice Items, Life Orb, Leftovers... and that's about it really. The only other items that can be used on a standard team (so no Damp Rock, etc) are Light Clay, Focus Sash, Lum Berry, Pinch Berries and Resist Berries. As you can see, in total there are about 3 items that are of any use on a defensive pokemon, so stall teams in particular will be hit very hard by a restriction such as this.

I think enforcing Item Clause will also reduce the amount of viable strategies there are available, and the variety of sets. Certain pokemon will become synonymous with an item and restrict the use of it on other pokemon. This is all theory, but I'm thinking about things like CB Tyranitar and Scarf Gengar, who are arguably some of the best users of their respective items.

I fail to see how Item Clause will reduce the viability of Trick. There are still 3 separate choice items to be tricked. There are very few teams that run 2 Choice Specs or Bands anyway, and so they will become prime Trick material. And one of the main reasons Trick is so widespread in the metagame today is because it is incorrectly programmed into Shoddy at present. A pokemon that uses Trick is free to use any attack it likes the next turn, even if it receives a choice item in return. This is not how it works in-game - in the cartridges a pokemon is locked into Trick if it receives a choice item. Once we are able to deal with Trick pokemon by switching in our own scarfers and forcing them to be locked into a useless attack, I am pretty sure it will decrease in popularity quite a bit.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

Item clause will prevent recovery from some who really need it and if anything it'll promote more Sandstorm immune teams and limit diversity. I don't support an Item Clause test.

I don't think Evasion really needs to be tested either, as it doesn't promote skill, but merely luck and that's been discussed heavily, so I've got really nothing else to add to it.

I don't think we need to test OHKO moves for the same reasons as not testing Evasion.

Stealth Rock should be tested seeing as it is such a controversial move. As I've said before this controversy over this move will not go away until we test it and we lack statistics of a metagame without it. So... most of what is debated is theorymon until we test it. If there was a ban called for it there wouldn't be much of a reason to even test Ho-Oh, so that's potentially killing two birds with one stone (pun unintended).

If we are going to keep Evasion Clause on the list to test I would move it after testing Manaphy. I think more people would like to see Manaphy tested sooner anyway.